D&D 5E What Is Sneak Attack "Equal" To, Balance-wise?

[auburn2]

Either build can use a shield, and it is optimal for neither.

A Rogue does not get shield proficiency unless they multiclass or use a feat to get moderately armored (which would bring them where the Ranger is to start).

 

[auburn2]

Crawford has said that the component cost is not there to stop using the cantrips with shadowblade. Per his tweet, here. He explicitly states that not only does he allow the combo, the combo was intended to work, and they just didn't realize they were messing with it.

Further, he suggests that it is allowable RAW, via interpretation of the rules for improvised weapons.

I also said nothing about TWF.

That is not what I think he said. He said he would allow it as DM because he allows liberal use of improvised weapons That is why I mentioned WOTC employees in my thread.

The description of the spell says you need a weapon worth 1sp. Shadow Blade is not that so RAW it should not be used. That is a houserule to allow it, to include when Crawford allows it as DM.

I said TWF because you could have a the Shadowblade in one hand and a weapon in the other. I was covering my bases.

 

[auburn2]

One die step more damage absolutely does not ever matter, and all the rest is possible with a longbow. Gaining access to a heavy crossbow is not a significant consideration, at all.

A longbow does less damage and more importantly can not be used by a Rogue. If you want to compare a heavy crossbow to a Rogue weapon you need to compare it to a shortbow or light crossbow.

I have never seen a ranger using medium armor, but even if I did have such a character, so what? They're a couple AC higher, at best, slightly more HP at best (since rogues can afford higher Con scores), and fewer ways to mitigate incoming damage that does hit them, and fewer ways to negate the opportunity for enemies to even try to hit them.

As long as we arre talknig about what we have never seen - I've never seen a Rogue with higher than a 10 Constitution. Usually they are investing in intelligence (for ATs) or charisma (for most others). I think Rangers are more likely to have a high constitution than Rogues are.

They are a couple AC higher AND they can access better weapons for a couple more points of damage AND they get spells as a half caster AND they get damage bonuses with class and subclass features.

Further this "it is only a couple points" works both ways, it is only 1hp per level they are losing with a d8 .... liek you say for all these other things - not a big deal.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

A Rogue does not get shield proficiency unless they multiclass or use a feat to get moderately armored (which would bring them where the Ranger is to start).

I addressed that already. A few posts down from the one you quoted.

That is not what I think he said. He said he would allow it as DM because he allows liberal use of improvised weapons That is why I mentioned WOTC employees in my thread.

He explicitly said the intention wasn’t to interfere with the combo.

The improvised weapon rules allow an improvised weapon to count as a weapon on the table, and thus to have a value.

The description of the spell says you need a weapon worth 1sp. Shadow Blade is not that so RAW it should not be used. That is a houserule to allow it, to include when Crawford allows it as DM.

It is if the DM decides it is, which they can do without houseruling by interpreting the improvised weapons rules generously.

Rules interpretation isn’t houseruling, not that there is anything wrong with houseruling.

Now, why on earth are you derailing my thread by insisting on debating such a tangential point so vigorously?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I've played with rogues that have a heavy crossbow, or are housertuled to be allowed to use a greatsword, and it does not significantly change their power level. Higher damage die on one die per turn does not significantly matter.

This is true and I totally agree and would support this argument, but I think ignoring the the two chances at SA issue (three with dual-wielding) is going to influence real-game damage more than you think.

Damage in D&D is pretty easy to math out and so long as it doesn't rely on bizarre stuff, translates well into real-game terms (hence Warlocks really do do great damage with EB+AB spam etc.).

If you look at the math involved in landing SA with Rogues, missing impacts the damage pretty significantly, and reducing the chance of missing SA by a significant percentage is going to have a real-game impact, especially as you're more likely to be using flanking SAs rather than Advantage SAs as a Ranger (where the impact is lower because Advantage is already factoring in). That's one subclass of course. Many of the other subclass' damage features aren't as big and could probably be retained unaltered. Swarm Ranger does 1d6 (later 1d8) extra damage on a hit 1/turn (as well as moving people), for example, so is just like your SA is slightly more powerful. The repositioning would be nice of course.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

A longbow does less damage and more importantly can not be used by a Rogue. If you want to compare a heavy crossbow to a Rogue weapon you need to compare it to a shortbow or light crossbow.

I literally explicitly addressed the damage in the text you quoted. Why do you keep ignoring what I’ve said in order to force arguments about things we’ve already dealt with in this thread.

As for the longbow, Rogues absolutely can use it. Getting weapon proficiencies isn’t hard.

As long as we arre talknig about what we have never seen - I've never seen a Rogue with higher than a 10 Constitution. Usually they are investing in intelligence (for ATs) or charisma (for most others). I think Rangers are more likely to have a high constitution than Rogues are.

I’ve never seen less than a 14 con on any rogue.

They are a couple AC higher AND they can access better weapons for a couple more points of damage AND they get spells as a half caster AND they get damage bonuses with class and subclass features.

Most rangers are one AC higher at very low levels only, at most. In fact most rangers are Dex based, and have exactly the same AC as rogues.

Again, all of this has been addressed.

Further this "it is only a couple points" works both ways, it is only 1hp per level they are losing with a d8 .... liek you say for all these other things - not a big deal.

Okay?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

This is true and I totally agree and would support this argument, but I think ignoring the the two chances at SA issue (three with dual-wielding) is going to influence real-game damage more than you think.

Damage in D&D is pretty easy to math out and so long as it doesn't rely on bizarre stuff, translates well into real-game terms (hence Warlocks really do do great damage with EB+AB spam etc.).

If you look at the math involved in landing SA with Rogues, missing impacts the damage pretty significantly, and reducing the chance of missing SA by a significant percentage is going to have a real-game impact, especially as you're more likely to be using flanking SAs rather than Advantage SAs as a Ranger (where the impact is lower because Advantage is already factoring in). That's one subclass of course. Many of the other subclass' damage features aren't as big and could probably be retained unaltered. Swarm Ranger does 1d6 (later 1d8) extra damage on a hit 1/turn (as well as moving people), for example, so is just like your SA is slightly more powerful. The repositioning would be nice of course.

Dread Ambusher is very limited, however. It’s one extra attack per combat. That isn’t a huge difference.

Possibly enough to slow down the SA progression, as we have discussed, but not enough to change any subclass to account for SA.

 

[Zardnaar]

I literally explicitly addressed the damage in the text you quoted. Why do you keep ignoring what I’ve said in order to force arguments about things we’ve already dealt with in this thread.

As for the longbow, Rogues absolutely can use it. Getting weapon proficiencies isn’t hard.

I’ve never seen less than a 14 con on any rogue.

Most rangers are one AC higher at very low levels only, at most. In fact most rangers are Dex based, and have exactly the same AC as rogues.

Again, all of this has been addressed.

Okay?

Best Rogue right now is a variety of elf due to elven accuracy and longbows with that (and shortbows and hand crossbows work well enough).

Technically it does leave a potential half elf with elven accuracy and no longbow.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

I'd just remove:
1) Extra attack
2) Hunter's Mark as a spell

Then add a sneak attack mechanic where you have to mark a creature with bonus action and move it with a bonus action when the target dies ala 4e.

Keep the fighting styles. I always compare the classes to the Paladin, and even with sneak attack + 1/2 spellcasting, the Ranger is still behind in terms of design.

Paladins can heal and support and deal damage. Rogues can do a lot with their B.A, things that only a high-level ranger can hope to match while having fewer skills.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I'd just remove:
1) Extra attack
2) Hunter's Mark as a spell

I’m inclined to agree.

Then add a sneak attack mechanic where you have to mark a creature with bonus action and move it with a bonus action when the target dies ala 4e.

I’ll consider that, though I may reduce the number of dice after low levels instead.

Keep the fighting styles. I always compare the classes to the Paladin, and even with sneak attack + 1/2 spellcasting, the Ranger is still behind in terms of design.

Agreed.

Paladins can heal and support and deal damage. Rogues can do a lot with their B.A, things that only a high-level ranger can hope to match while having fewer skills.

Agreed. My other changes to the ranger may make up a lot of that difference, though, so dice equal to proficiency mod may work better than 1/2 level.